Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilitytrialmotiondiscriminationpunitive damages
plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneyliabilityinjunctionmotiondiscriminationcorporationnonprofitcompensatory damages

Related Cases

Yonaty v. Mincolla, 97 A.D.3d 141, 945 N.Y.S.2d 774, 40 Media L. Rep. 2014, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04248
View Case »
Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 92 P.3d 584
View Case »
White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517
View Case »
McCurdy v. Wallblom Furniture & Carpet Co., 94 Minn. 326, 102 N.W. 873, 3 Am.Ann.Cas. 468
View Case »
Brown v. Frontier Theatres, Inc., 369 S.W.2d 299
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., 6 F.3d 898, 142 A.L.R. Fed. 683

Facts

The plaintiffs, two married African American couples and the Open Housing Center, alleged that Harry Macklowe Real Estate Company violated the Fair Housing Act by using only white models in their advertisements for residential apartments in The New York Times. The plaintiffs claimed that these ads indicated a racial preference, which led to emotional distress. After a fourteen-day trial, the district court found that the defendants had indeed violated the Act and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.

The individual plaintiffs are two married couples who reside in New York City. All four are African Americans who hold graduate degrees in the fields of law, public policy, medicine or speech pathology. The OHC is a nonprofit corporation located in New York City. Its 'mission' is to reduce the amount of segregation in, and to eliminate all discrimination from, the metropolitan residential housing market.

Issue

Did the defendants violate the Fair Housing Act by using only white models in their advertisements, and did the plaintiffs have standing to sue?

The defendants argue that the individual plaintiffs have suffered no injury because they were not in the market for housing when they saw these ads but instead actively were combing the newspapers looking for these ads in order to bring a section 804(c) action.

Rule

Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act prohibits advertisements that indicate any preference or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Section 804(c) of the FHA provides that it shall be unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the absence of black models in the advertisements would lead an ordinary reader to interpret the ads as indicating a racial preference. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing because they suffered an injury as a result of the defendants' conduct, which was the very harm the Fair Housing Act was designed to prevent.

Judge Sweet found that 'a plaintiff who proves that she read the challenged advertisements and that the advertisements would indicate a racial preference to the ordinary reader has suffered injury in precisely the form the [FHA] was intended to guard against, and therefore has standing to maintain a claim for damages under the Act's provisions.'

Conclusion

The court affirmed the finding of liability against the defendants for violating the Fair Housing Act and awarded damages for emotional distress, but declined to award punitive damages.

The district court issued an opinion: finding that both HMRE and Macklowe violated the Act; awarding each individual plaintiff $2500 in compensatory damages for emotional distress; and awarding the OHC $20,000 in compensatory damages for the resources it was required to allocate to counteract the effects of the defendants' advertisements.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court found that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and awarded damages for emotional distress.

The court affirmed the district court's findings with respect to standing, liability and damages, leave the injunction undisturbed and reverse and remand on the issue of attorneys' fees.

You must be